# A Proposal



## Zuu (Jan 2, 2009)

(I'm posting this here because it wouldn't fit in the social group discussion. =/ But oh well, here you go. It pertains to the forums.)

Based on what I've seen on this forum, the post to page ratio most people use is very low. I propose that we put forth a bill - yes, legislature - that requires everyone to use fifty posts per page. This way, when linking to specific pages, people won't whine about not knowing what everyone else is talking about. Also, I have a theory that this would help prevent things like the US vs World Incident from occurring ever again. Of course, we're going to need signatures for this, and possibly Butterfree's approval. Again, this is just a proposal, and can be taken with a grain of salt. But I'm very serious about this issue, and I strongly believe that a fifty post per page ratio would be ideal for this forum, this nation, and this internet. Now, I have written up a short paragraph that could be used on the bill.


We the People of this Social Group, hereby propose that the required post to page ratio be fifty to one, for the following reasons:

1. Forcing the forums to sift through eighty or more pages in order to bring up the latest just contributes to slowdown, which is unfavorable for all members
2. Linking to specific pages (instead of posts) would be much easier
3. It harms no one and can only be a benefit

We solemnly believe that this change could only bring about good things for this forum's future. 

However, I have a few reasons as to why I cannot be the one to directly propose this movement. Firstly, I caught a cold the other day and I'm afraid I could be away from the computer for extended periods of time. Secondly, I sprained my ankle severely. You see, I got in one little fight and my mom got scared, and said "you're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air". I whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I can say this cab is rare, but I thought "Now forget it" - "Yo homes, to Bel Air!" I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8,
and I yelled to the cabbie "Yo homes, smell ya later!" I looked at my kingdom.
I was finally there: to sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air.


----------



## xkze (Jan 2, 2009)

oh no you didn't
also
I have no opinion either way thus far about the issue


----------



## Zuu (Jan 2, 2009)

I don't really think it's that urgent, I just thought that it's a decent idea. /me shrug


----------



## Lucas₇₅₅ (Jan 2, 2009)

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't help in the forum slowdown; I'm pretty sure sifting through posts, not pages, is what made the forum slow.


----------



## Alexi (Jan 2, 2009)

It might just be me, but I don't quite understand how this would help the issue.


----------



## Zuu (Jan 2, 2009)

Well, the forums slowed down because of the amount of effort and time it took for the forums to go through every page to get to the most recent page. Now, when a bunch of people are trying to do it at the same time... = slowdown.


----------



## Butterfree (Jan 2, 2009)

Uh. It's not that the forum goes through every page. It's that the forum goes through every _post_. How many posts are on each "page" has nothing to do with it; the forum doesn't see those posts in "pages". In fact, if anything that would slow the forum down more, since then each time you view only the last page (or first) of a thread, it needs to process _more_ posts, while it still has to skip past approximately the same number of posts.


----------



## Zuu (Jan 2, 2009)

Ah, alright. The way it was explained to me used "pages"; I was just mistaken.

:|


----------



## Kratos Aurion (Jan 2, 2009)

Putting fifty posts on a page will reduce the number of pages, yes, and that will probably go some way toward helping prevent any future slowdown related to things like that. But fifty posts per page could potentially increase page load time for individual members, especially when you consider a lot of the recent complaining about hueg signatures causing personal loading slowdown or people with poorer connections. That's not even considering threads with a lot of images in the actual posts, like art threads or those "you ____ you lose" or whatever games. It might not increase it too drastically for all members--I have a decently fast connection and generally adblock annoying or huge things in sigs, so it probably wouldn't trouble me too much--but I can't speak for everyone.

Besides, if a thread were to become as hugely popular as US vs the World again, even with fifty posts per page a thread of the same size would still reach 340 or so pages. That's less than half of what the thread originally had, yes, and vB has managed threads of that size before, but it's still a lot. :/

I'm all for anything that will prevent the constant whitescreening, I'm just not sure that this is the way (and personally I like my 20 posts per page just fine, thanks). Superhueg threads are still superhueg threads; their superhuegness would just become annoying in a different way. I still think that a maximum number of posts per thread before requiring a lock+restart (maybe a lock+hard delete+restart if you want to be really thorough) would be a better solution. And then, of course, there's always preventing "clutter threads" like those from happening in the first place wherever possible, but as I tend to turn off/ignore threads and forums I don't like I'm not personally annoyed by or attached to any of the "clutter" and will leave those of you with stronger opinions to argue over it yourselves.

EDIT: And there's what Butterfree just said while I was writing this, I guess, but I wouldn't have known about that one way or the other.


----------



## ultraviolet (Jan 2, 2009)

Everything I was going to say was said by Butterfree and Kratos Aurion

dammit :|


----------



## Evolutionary (Jan 3, 2009)

I don't care if this is put into action or not. But I prefer the way it is now, to be kind to the poor slow connection people.


----------



## surskitty (Jan 3, 2009)

If your connection sucks ass and you have avatars and/or signatures on, I highly suggest you turn them off.

Just change the settings so that threads are closed at 1k posts or something.


----------



## Lorem Ipsum (Jan 3, 2009)

you know, you make this 'forum slowdown' to be like the economic downturn.

Anyway, I don't think it's a bad idea, content wise. I think that it can be a bit tedious trying to find the page the post you were looking for was on, whereas if it were more posts to a page, you could just CTRL+F


----------



## surskitty (Jan 3, 2009)

Then you CHANGE YOUR OWN SETTINGS. :O

people need to not link to pages, though~


----------

